tv Fareed Zakaria GPS CNN January 23, 2011 10:00am-11:00am EST
schizophrenia. >> we thank all of you who shared your stories with us over this past week. on our website, we have links to places recommended by our experts where you can turn for help on mental health issues, cnn.com/sotu. i'm candy crowley, for you're viewers here in the united states, fareed zakaria gps. . this is gps, the global public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria. as president obama approaches his state of the union address, i would suggest he try an ambitious effort at bipartisanship. i know, bipartisanship sounds boring and evokes dull committees and conclusions. but i would argue that bipartisanship done right could be just what america needs right
now. there are actually good ideas on both sides of the aisle. president obama should propose a strategy for innovation and growth that could appeal to both republicans and democrats. we know that republicans and democrats disagree on basic economic strategy. democrats want more direct government stimulus and republicans want to cut spending. republicans just enacted a huge fiscal stimulus in the form of tax cuts but never mind, they say they want to cut spending. obama should do an end run around this pointless debate and propose an agenda for long-term growth. the white house is actually written a superb paper on innovation that could serve as a blueprint. if america is going to have deck alds of growth creating new jobs for millions it will need to create new industries and grow cutting edge technologies. republicans and democrats agree on that. the question is how to do it. republicans focus on the need to have a conducive tax structure
that encourages the private sector. and democrats focus on the need for greater federal investment and infrastructure. the truth is both sides are right. the united states is losing competitiveness to other countries. 20 years ago america's corporate tax rate was the lowest in the industrialized world. today it is the second highest and here's the key point. we didn't raise ours. other country trips lowered theirs. companies can now easily base themselves or grow their operations like singapore, and china and india. rather than expand on plants in america. the u.s. has to benchmark against other countries and remain an attractive place to businesses. it has taken place because of federal funding. without the defense department there would be no semiconductor industry. nasa was the largest customer of
the computer industry and why al gore may not have invented the internet, darpa did. and on and on. federal spending on research and development is still much too low. our goal should be to double it in the next three years. if obama sets out a program that will make america more competitive for private business and couples it with a push for massive new funding for research technology, digital infrastructure, the smart grid and other such projects, he will be marrying two good economic ideas. and in this case, good economics might be good politics. today a very important show. you've just heard what i think the president needs to say in the state of the union. we've got a great panel to tell you what they think. first, the main event, without the work of two men, many
decades ago, this week's china state visit would probably never have happened and you will hear from them both today. we'll talk first to former secretary of state henry kissinger, who began the thawing of relations between the two countries and brought nixon to china. then brzezinski who oversaw the relations between china and the united states. both men were actively involved in this week's visit. then what in the world is happening in the arab world? is george w. bush's dream of democracy coming true? finally, alast look at what 25 tons of bombs look like after they have been dropped. let's get started. 40 years ago henry kissinger made a secret trip to china. it was the beginning of the opening to china restoring relations between america and the middle kingdom.
this week the nobel prize winning former secretary of state attended the state dinner president obama threw for president hu jintao. kissinger and associate has worked in china consulting with american companies that want to do business there. welcome back to the show. >> it's a pleasure. >> on the crucial -- you watch the atmospherics of the last few days. how did they strike you? >> atmospherics were very positive and both sides made up their mind actually before the meeting that they would improve the atmospherics, which is important in this case because public opinion in both countries was beginning to run in the opposite direction and more material was being produced on the negative side of the
relationship than solutions on the positive side. so i think they have begun the work program and now it remains to be seen to what extent it can be executed. >> what do you think of the -- there's a dominant strain among china watchers of feeling that this is what's happened over the last two years, obama came into the white house wanting to be con sill tri or at least cooperative with china. made a number of gestures. the chinese seem to misread it or read it as weakness and got tougher on issues and overreacted on some. something is changing in china where there's a new assertiveness and combativeness. >> of course, this is a new generation in china. this is the generation that grew up in the culture revolution when they saw a lot of turmoil in their youth but enormous stability and progress.
they don't really remember the period of national weakness that china represented in the earlier period. and then they have a very chinese approach to politics. it's very hard for the chinese to absorb the fact that many of our actions, most of our actions are more random actions not generated by pressure groups. but they put them together as though they were part of an overall design. so then they begin to interpret that as an american attempt to hold them down. and this leads to an atmosphere of mutual suspicious, partly produced by the cast of mind of the two sides but it will develop a reality of its own. >> you talk about a new generation. and you're right, this is a
generation that has seen 30 years of peace and stability. >> and enormous progress. >> and seen the beijing olympics, which conditions them more. are they as a result more combative, more assertive? >> necessarily a question of combative. the chinese have a very unemotional view of international relations. they assess the balance of forces and they won't respect or they -- to which they feel they are entitled by their strength. >> do you think that on the two issues that president obama probably pressed concretely, which is the revaluation of china's currency, and on the issue of chinese firms and chinese government entities stealing intellectual property, ez likely to get any progress or
accommodations? >> if it can be done in a way that it does not look like a chinese defeat, in other words, if they don't have to step up to s say, we have removed the currency, i believe they now understand a way it might be done with some mutual concessions over a period, say, of a year. i think i would be disappointed if that did not happen. >> the movement of wan? >> now whether it's exactly to the percentage we want or not, but i think that tim geithner has laid out something that is compatible with the way the chinese define their self-respect on the issue so
that it does not look as yielding to american pressure. it may not be visible next week. >> you've dealt with so many chinese leaders. in fact people tell me that chinese leaders now want to meet you because the current chinese leaders never met -- and you spent hundreds of hours with them and they learn from you about their history. do you feel they are genuinely smarter than western leaders, that they are more strategic. we have this mythology about everybody from chinese mothers, all supposed to be better than us. are they? >> they are different. they are -- first of all, this generation of chinese leaders is more like us than the first generation. the first generation of chinese leaders were in a way in style
more kparab come parable to the historical chinese. this generation is more practical. >> engineers and -- >> in the chinese way of thinking. they have a more conceptual approach -- >> which means what? >> which means that they like to -- tend to connect the dots so we do four or five things as produced by american domestic pressures. they then try to define a design for let's say presidencies, d l dalai lama, all of it could happen, they didn't think somebody sitting down here and trying to hold it down and therefore we shouldn't be after. no in terms of the marriage of
the dispute but in terms of asserting ourselves in such an extraordinary way that they'll never do it again. so this is one problem. secondly, i believe you have to understand that the chinese intellectual game. it's what we call why key. this is a game of strategic encirclement. chess is about victory or defeat. somebody wins. and all of the pieces are in front of you at all times. so you can calculate your risk and there are 180 pieces but they are not all on the board. and your opponent is always capable of introducing new pieces. so when you look at the chinese
analogies of the strategic situations, historically, they do it in this goal way. >> and the game never ends. >> the game almost never ends. >> henry kissinger, always a pleasure. we will be back. >> if you look at every aspect of china, every aspect of america, everything is literally in a contrast. short history, long history, we have this very amalgam for all of world. i could go on for hours. >> woman: good night, gluttony-- a farewell long awaited. good night, stuffy. >> ( yawning ) >> good night, outdated. >> ( click ) >> good night, old luxury and all of your wares. good night, bygones everywhere.
>> ( engine revs ) >> good morning, illumination. good morning, innovation. good morning, unequaled inspiration. >> ( heartbeats ) [ male announcer ] at e-trade, low cost investing doesn't just mean a low price. it means getting everything you need to invest for yourself, not by yourself. it means choosing from stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and every etf sold. plus 5-star service and research designed to increase your intelligence, not insult it. so you can wave good riddance to some high-priced joker churning out cookie cutter portfolios. price is one thing. value is another. don't confuse the two. e-trade. investing unleashed.
so i take one a day men's 50+ advantage. as a manager, my team counts on me to stay focused. it's the only complete multivitamin with ginkgo to support memory and concentration. plus it supports heart health. [ bat cracks ] that's a hit. one a day men's. try capzasin-hp. it penetrates deep to block pain signals for hours of relief. capzasin-hp. take the pain out of arthritis.
brzezinski has hu jintao was the most important visit since the visit to the united states 30 years ago. brzezinski should know as national security adviser to president carter. he brokered that meeting and it was under carter and brzezinski that they were normalized. he has been actively involved in this week's visit and we welcome him back to the show. >> good to be with you, fareed. >> why do you think this was so important? is it you feel there is a danger that u.s./chinese relations are getting derailed by increasing deem onization. >> that's the risk. in the last year and a half or so on both sides there has been
receiving row sifrous of each other and that could get out of hand. china is now a global player. the issue is do we go forward together dealing with global problems or do we drift, drift into some sort of increasing confrontation. and one of reasons i wrote the article for "the new york times" early on was to encourage both sides to address the central question, is there a common agenda for us? i have to say looking at the communicate that they did pretty well. they started to talk seriously. >> the crucial issue from the american side seems to me was laid out by robert zellic when he was deputy secretary of state. in other words, will it be -- was it willing to produce global goods rather than just consume them? by that i mean do things on climate change and do things on trade and do things on regional
security in northeast asia that are beneficial generally rather than very narrowly to china? what's your sense? does china want to play that role of a kind of creator of public goods? >> i think encreasingly they realize they have to if they are to be what they want to be, which is a major power in keeping with their history, their sense of themselves. but, the definition of what they ought to be is not going to be made by us. precisely because they do want to be a major player. so what is important in our dialogue and this is why this meeting was useful, is to itemize the issues on which we have to work together and begin to spell out a kind of generalized sense of direction but not one in which direction means i direct and you follow. that's much more difficult. >> do you believe that -- there's a general view that the
president obama came into office being quite con sill tri towards the chinese and they read that as a sign of weakness and were surprisingly combative with them. that there's something going on here where there's been a new chinese assertiveness or they have misperceived the obama administration? >> actually, i don't buy either. it seems to me what has been happening to some extent is an inevitable stage in the process of adjustment. 30 years ago they were an important country given their location of history. but they were very, very backward, very under developed. today they are manufacturing is as big as america's and we know the thrust and they know it. we're going through a process of redefining the perimeters of the relationships and inner workings of the relationship. but increasingly i sense with the realization at least within
both elites, that we have to swim together or we'll sink separately but with the same effect for each other. i think this is what this meeting is all about. we're learning about them. they are learning about us. we know also, i think, i hope, that their evolving in some respects slowly and in some respects fast. >> china is getting more nationalistic and we look at it in and it sometimes bothers us but it really bothers the japanese and indians and vietnamese and south koreans. >> i do have a bit of a sense last year the chinese overplayed their hand and played their hand badly in the sense that they managed simultaneously to a really frighten in addition to irritate the japanese. certainly to irritate the
vietnamese and make the indians feel they can use us against the chinese and so forth. and i have a sense that this visit for them was also a redressing of the balance. not that they feel guilty, but that they felt perhaps things ought to be played a little differently. hopefully we're learning but we have of course, now a very gridlocked political system to some expect polarized and probably more polarized in foreign policy than we really know. right now the focus is on domestic politics here. >> but you have this extraordinary situation with the speaker of the house refused to attend the state dinner. >> exactly. which i think is a rather uncivil and unwise action because after all the republicans are part of the action. they are co-partners in the government and i would think they would have the desire to participate in the process, which is they influence more they participate in it. >> do you think that going forward on currency and
intellectual property, the chinese are going to be more accumulating, or is this the new normal with u.s./china relations, tension and some misunderstanding? >> i think accommodation is going to be a step by step process in which there is pushing and maneuvering and new perimeters are drawn. it's not going to be us telling them what to do and certainly not going them telling us what to do. it's going to be a complicated process. but my sense is that at least those who shape policies in both countries now realize there is a kind of de facto partnership and it is in our mutual interest for the disagreements to not get out of hand. that's not a bad conclusion to reach in a very complicated relationship between two as different country as one can imagine. if you look at every aspect of
china and america, everything literally is in a contrast. we short history, they long history. we have this very satile amall gam for all over the world. yet we're managing and they are managing. >> pleasure to have you on. >> always good to be with you, fareed. >> we will be back. >> the united states adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the middle east. the strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. and it will yield the same results.
popular movements in the 50s and 60s but in the end they led to dictatorships. it's too soon to tell fortu tunisia but there is hope. we look at them not as an isolated episode but part of a decade of change. there is a pattern emerging. ten years the political landscape was bleak in the arab world. today there are sprouts of democracy breaking out all over. this progress is mostly happening as two steps back, one step forward, two steps ford, one step back, but it is happening. start with iraq. it's still struggling through deek sectarianism, it is a swa functional multiparty government and vibrant free press. the 2009 green revolution would have been unimaginable a few years earlier. lebanon has faltered with the government collapsing but serious direct control of that country has ended and we now
have a messy but more open political system though one in which has quasiterrorism as a player. egypt has initiated some serious economic reforms. the political system remains closed as ever but that crucial country faces a moment of truth has he faces his last years in office as president. who knows what might happen inii inial year i can't in the next years. speaking of the freedom deficit in their lands, which is quite true, and of course, george w. bush set forth to fix the problem with what he called a forward strategy of freedom in the middle east. listen to mr. bush. >> this strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. and it will yield the same
results. as in europe, as in asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace. [ applause ] the advance of freedom is the calling of our time. it is the calling of our country. >> if bush's vision does come to fruition, will it be because of america's military pressure or despite it? that's an interesting debate. in iran, the democracy movement happened thanks to a stolen election and mass movement. in lebanon, a political assassination. in tunisia, a middle class that had enough of a dictator enriching himself while they suffered. and in egypt a middle class doesn't want to see the keys of kingdom handed down. it comes from economic growth, middle class restlessness and above all, of course, the
political failures of dictators. it can be help from abroad but ultimately it is an organic process when successful. give president bush his due. he believed arabs were not genetically incapable of democracy. we will be right back. >> what will republicans be wanting to hear? >> an apology. i'm sorry, i'm on a completely wrong track for the past two years. republicans are going to be looking for signs of weakness. [ male announcer ] this is steven, a busy man.
his day starts with his arthritis pain. that's breakfast with two pills. the morning is over, it's time for two more pills. the day marches on, back to more pills. and when he's finally home... but hang on; just two aleve can keep arthritis pain away all day with fewer pills than tylenol. this is steven, who chose aleve and 2 pills for a day free of pain. and get the all day pain relief of aleve in liquid gels.
david fromm was a speech writing, most famous for his 2002 state of the union address. now senior editor and staff writer at the new yorker. and jobs and economy will surely be a main focus of the speech. the d.c. based economics editor of the economist, say that five times fast. welcome to you all. >> david, since you had the most recent experience, what is the state of the union in terms of the president -- how is it different from a speech of the u.n. or inaugural? what is the president trying to accomplish. >> it's the moon launch of the executive branch. it's not written from beginning to end, written in components that are slapped together. getting the components into a speech, i remember you mentioned 2002, i did a lot of work on agriculture section but it never appeared at all. that section was just omitted
because you have a time limit. i assume that modular method is used in others. the president puts down an general da and makes a connection to the america people. the people see the president in a seven or eight second clip at most. to see him at an extended period of time, they always come away liking their president better because you don't get to be president unless you've got skills that enable you to communicate with people through that box. >> but to that point, given what you're describing, why does it feel -- i understand bureaucratically why it ends up being a laundry list of the wish list and stuff like that, but doesn't the president realize it gets kind of boring and it's not going be interesting as and inspiring to them. >> this is a place where president clinton was a real innovator. what happened with clinton, he would deliver these terrible, boring, ghastly states of the union. and then for mrs. mill dread james in milwaukee, planting a
new tree in front of your house. then the numbers would go crazy, the worst speech was the better people liked him. >> why? >> because what people are listening for, what is that thing i want to hear that you're going to do for me. they also -- somehow that connection to the president is evolved and talking about things they care about. >> and he's smart and grasps the material. >> clinton really changed it. post clinton presidents don't aspire so much to write a beautiful finished speech. the 2002 speech was the most coherent statement a president has made, didn't have anything like the impact on president bush's numbers of the 1997, 1998 speeches had ton bill clinton's numbers. >> he's right. the clinton speak was an outliar and all of the professionals,le journalists and e ex-speechwriters thought this was a disaster. then as david said, the numbers
shot off the charts. the state of the union is a tell ashs process because all of the pressures, bureaucratic apprecia appreciate you'res come to bear on one point. i think this one, this will be a nonclinton one, i expect. one of the advantages for obama in having lost the house and therefore having lost the chance for any big accomplishments, it opens up more space for a more them attic speech. i suspect we'll get a more coherent literary kind of speech. >> you've been in america for a long time but you're british. is this sort of like the queen's speech to parliament? how does this strike you? >> as a process i would never ever want to be involved with. i think it's interesting that you mentioned the clinton -- a rifd in 1996 in the clinton era.
i remember those laundry list state of the unions went on and on. i suspect this this year we're going to need a bit of boat. we'll need the big narrative. there is a sense that people don't know what obama's stralt gi strategy is for the economy and the economy will be absolutely central. how will he get america back to work? we've gotten past the crisis, out of the emergency room but what's really his view for where this country is going? he's talked about a sput mik movement, maybe it will be something along those lines. he really needs to wrap it into the quotable phrase that he has a big vision for the country. at the same time i suspect the lessons of clinton come through too. people want tangible things. they don't want big rhetoric. what is he going to do to get jobs? what is he going to do to deal with the deficit and all of these concrete things we're
worried about? it's going to be a careful balance of both the big picture and the kitchen sink. it's going to be a tough one to do. >> what will republicans be wanting to hear? >> an apology. i'm sorry, i'm on the completely wrong track for the past two years. republicans are going to be looking for signs of weakness. there's no way around that. and does he seem uncertain and not seem to have a clear agenda. does he in any way look to beholden to interest groups at the time when republican interest groups are stronger. one very serious one, the serious suggestion, the mood of the country is terrible. you have almost half of americans thinking that china has overtaken the united states as the world's dominant economic power. something that is not true, may happen in the distant future, not true now. words to remind people of the strength and latent power of the united states, all of the sources there.
a country that makes 20 times more pat enlts a year than china. something about that, that was not a phrase, it's really true. sometimes fear is paralyzing. this is a moment when we're so uncertain about theout come of the 2012 election, how can it be that a senator has the secret power to put a hold on a govern on the federal reserve and without anyone knowing formally who's doing it prevent a vote on that governor for months and months? and the next republican president will dislike that as much as this president dislikes. >> it we'll be back with more after this. >> it is coming -- arrived at the state and local level and arrive soon at the national level. there are going to be losers. we're all going to be losers. some will lose more and some will lose less. who should the bigger losers be?
i like it. i do too. ♪ even if i'm poor ♪ i ain't chasing nothing ♪ you're gonna have to catch me ♪ ♪ and if you want to dance ♪ you're gonna have to pay a fee ♪ ♪ i'm the bomb and about to blow up ♪ ♪ yeah, i'm the bomb ♪ and about to blow up ♪ yeah ♪ whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh ♪ whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh ♪ everybody, sing it now ♪ whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh ♪ whoa-oh-oh-oh-oh ♪ everybody, sing it now hey tough guy, that cold needs alka seltzer plus! it has the cold-fighting power of an effervescent packed in a liquid-gel for all over relief! hiyah! dude! premier of the packed bag. you know when to hold 'em... and how to fold 'em. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle...and go. you can even take a full-size or above
i'm candy crowley, here are today's top stories. six people were killed and at least 30 others wounded after a car bombs exploded in five different neighborhoods in baghdad. the attacks occurred over a three-hour period earlier this morning. officials say the bombings appear to have the hall marks of al qaeda in iraq. former secretary of state colin powell says barack obama has a way to go as president, he addressed other challenges facing the president on the eve of his state of the union address. >> the economy is now starting rebound, more slowly we like to see, whether you approve health care or not, he took on that issue which is a major challenge for the american people. and so i hope we can fix whatever may be at fault in the bill that was passed but we need
some kind of health reform. i think he took that on. i think he has reached out to countries around the world and developed good relations with countries around the world and working hard on the issue of unemployment, which i think is the major problem facing america right now. and i think and i hope this will be the center piece of the state of the union speech. >> you can see my entire interview today at noon eastern on cnn. up next, much more on fareed zakaria gps. r the line ♪ ♪ come precisely on time ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ a continuous link, that is always in sync ♪ ♪ that's logistics ♪ ♪ there will be no more stress ♪ ♪ cause you've called ups, that's logistics ♪
we are back with our terrific panel, david frum, zanny, all giving advice to the president. rick, speak from the point of view from the dis gruntled left. i don't know if it's fair to put you in that position. one of things obama will have to balance is this issue of how do you move to the center or appeal to the country and at the same time not make the folks at msnbc go crazy? >> well, i think he's actually in a better position to do that
than he was a couple of months ago. the left is sort of absorbed the body blow of the loss of the house. and i do think that while it's a little tasteless to think about his speech at tucson in a purely political context, i think that that impressed everyone and showed that, that that side of his character the side of the kind of -- a combination of huge civility, refusal to get angry and some firmness behind it -- >> but can that translate into a policy program that will appeal to both sides? i think that there is a deal here, which is do stuff on the competitiveness issues, tax reform, regulatory reform and also tell the republicans you've
got to agree to investments and research development and infrastructure and say this is the growth agenda. this is the only way we can grow over the next decade. >> i agree with that. i think the zakaria agenda is a good one. the difficulty with that. there are two versions. the minimalist version, which is do a little bit tiny kitchen sink things and little bit on tax reform or the max mallist one, really do infrastructure investments and a lot of progress stuff and deal with the median term deficit and something on entitlements too, it's clear that would be a better outcome. it's striking that the u.s. is the one big western economy where we have no idea how the median term fiscal problem will be solved. in an ideal world we would start tackling this now. i think it will be tough for the
president there shall be no tax increases for middle income households. i don't see how you solve the problem without having tax reform that deals with the mortgage interest deduction, all of these kind of sacred cows that would involve higher taxes on middle income americans. >> the closing of loopholes and reductions is raising taxes. >> when you call them loopholes and reductions, everyone hates them. when you say charitable contributions, don't touch that, you'll have every lobby group going after them. >> the republicans have in theory been greatly in favor of deficit reduction, but no actual deficit reduction. >> as the republicans become the party of the elderly you reflect the interest of your constituents. they are the greatest beneficiaries. >> are you saying the republicans have become -- are the demographics clear? >> you look back in the middle
1988, a good baseline, not going to remember the numbers exactly, the democrats dominated among over 65s. in the past congressional election, it's a smaller electorate, but the republicans dominateded in people over 65. that has been in the 1980s, the republicans were dominant among people under 30 and the democrats are now dominant. >> this is fascinating. the republicans have their base and idealogy in two completely different bases. their base wants the elderly and idealogy says we have to cut them. >> that is why you know the two worst things about the president's health care program, it increases the deficit and you will hear people say that but they are not completely irrational. it is also true, i hope the tech no kratic path is correct one, it is possible to get 17 wise people in a room with a good flow of hydration and have them work out a technical deal that
would put us over a certain period of years on economic growth. it's also more likely is this, we have a huge burden of adjustment coming. it has arrived at the state and local level and will arise soon at the national level. there are going to be losers. we're all going to be losers. some will lose more and some will lose less. who should the bigger losers be? that will be resolved in a furious episode of very intense politics. >> i completely agree with you. the tech no kratic solution has a lot of political difficulties. the real irony is that the politics suggest that nothing is going to happen for a long time which means in the end the kind of pain of the solution gets even worse. it would be much better if we sat these 17 people around the table and started to do things now. >> that's right. >> or if you have the british system where you have a parliamentary system and you have -- exactly. >> fareed said something in a
column, made a huge impact. the system is good at dealing with crisis but surprisingly bad at dealing with chronic problems. that's a very important point. what that suggests and i think you're right about it, that we're going to do not very much until some kind of crisis erupts. then you get the t.a.r.p. moments where over a weekend people part the ideology at the door and say inside the room exactly the opposite outside of the room and some kind of nasty and disagreeable but reasonably effective deal gets done. and the question is how much pain do we need to take? what you are praying for and i completely concur. can we anticipate this problem and solve it before the pain arrives? but if you're right -- >> and on the note of that about
looks like we're in for a bumpy ride. go ahead, ignore me. but in this turbulent market, you're going to need help... protecting some of your assets for retirement. an axa equitable annuity could give you... guaranteed income for life. i'd call them, but what do i know? i'm just the 800-pound gorilla in the room. don't worry. i'm here. want guaranteed income for life? axa equitable is redefining what you expect from annuities. ooh, peanuts.
our question this week from the gps challenge is, complying with the request from the chinese delegation, what entree did the white house serve at this week's state dinner? was it a, stir fried beef with snowpeas. b, dry aged rib eye, c peking duck or d maine lobster tails. stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer. while you're there, don't forget to check out our podcasts, you can describe to it on i tunes and never miss a show and the price is great, nothing. if the chinese state visit had you worrying about america's
decline, you'll want to read this week's book of the week. it's called "the future of po r power." by one of the best thinkers, harvard university's joseph nye, we have to throw out and focus on the ability to obtain the outcome you want. by that definition america is not in decline and will probably remain the most powerful country in the world for decades to come. a refreshing and smart read about an absolutely crucial subject. now for the last look, if you've ever wondered and i hope you haven't, what a town looks like after it's been hit by 50,000 pounds of bombs, you don't have to wonder anymore. pictures were posted on the best defense blog of the afghan village of tarok kolache. this is the be